This paper presents a judicial dissent in the voice of legal positivist philosopher John Austin, arguing that the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County was legally unjustifiable. The paper contends that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, does not expressly protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation. From a strict legal positivist perspective, the Court overstepped its interpretive role by effectively amending the statute rather than applying its plain text. The paper concludes that the appropriate mechanism for extending such protections is congressional legislation, not judicial reinterpretation.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Act applies to all employers with 15 or more employees, and it covers a wide range of employment practices, including hiring, firing, promotion, and compensation. Title VII also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination. If an employee believes that he or she has been the victim of discrimination, he or she can file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC will then investigate the claim and, if it finds evidence of discrimination, it may take legal action against the employer.
It must be agreed by all that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The legal positivist interpretation of this law is that it should be read narrowly to prohibit only intentional discrimination by employers. This means that an employer cannot refuse to hire someone or give them a promotion because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, this interpretation does not extend to cases of unconscious bias or disparate impact. For example, if an employer has a policy that disproportionately impacts people of a certain race, they would not be violating the law under this interpretation. Critics of this interpretation argue that it is too narrow and does not adequately protect employees from discrimination. They argue that the law should be interpreted more broadly to encompass all forms of discrimination, whether intentional or not.
Legal positivism is a theory of law that holds that the only source of valid law is positive law, as opposed to natural law. This means that laws are created by humans through legislation, rather than being based on morality or ethics. Legal positivism is often contrasted with natural law theory, which holds that there are objective moral principles that should underpin the law.
The legal positivist viewpoint holds that the law is what the legislature says it is, and that court decisions are only authoritative insofar as they are based on the text of the relevant statutes. Applying this approach to the question of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it is clear that the answer is no. The text of the Act does not mention sexual orientation, and there is no controlling Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Act to prohibit such discrimination. As a result, any beliefs or practices regarding sexual orientation that an employer might have would not be displaced by Title VII. This conclusion may be controversial, but it flows logically from the legal positivist approach to statutory interpretation.
Bostock argued that his termination was a violation of his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In Bostock v. Clayton County, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination and is therefore prohibited by Title VII. However, this holding is not based on a legal positivist view of statutory interpretation.
Under a legal positivist approach, it can be argued that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation because the text of the statute does not expressly mention sexual orientation. This is also consistent with the traditional understanding of sex discrimination as discriminating against someone because of their biological sex (male or female), rather than their sexual orientation (gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight). As a result, there is substantial room for disagreement on whether Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Furthermore, revising Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to reflect contemporary values is unjustifiable. If the Court wishes to rule in Bostock's favor, it should rely upon a law that gives Bostock protection in terms of sexual orientation. Title VII is not that law.
"Court's majority opinion improperly amends the statute"
"Legislative amendment is the proper path for legal change"
The majority opinion in the ruling of Bostock is therefore in the wrong. It cannot be supported legally, although some may wish to support the ruling morally. Morality, however, should have nothing to do with the job of a justice of the Supreme Court. It is not the duty of such a justice to bring morality to any case. It is only the duty of such a justice to interpret the text of the law as it is written — no more, no less. Thus, the dissenting opinion must conclude that there is no justification for Bostock's appeal: Title VII does not warrant such justification, nor can this Court give it. Nor ought this Court give it.
You’re 70% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.